Can a pastor refuse to marry a gay couple

There is civil marriage and religious marriage. This is largely what makes democracy possible. These are two very different and very important distinctions, especially in a predominately secular culture such as ours. In the recent Masterpiece Cakes decision, the court did just that—and the answer is no.

As to my friends dilemma, I would say he is half right: He is right that the state should have no power of compulsion over the church to declare any marriage, same sex or not, as valid in the eyes of God and the church. But others believe both ministers and government officials likely will have freedom not to perform same-sex marriages that violate their religious convictions.

That, however, should not affect the principle of separating the responsibilities and authority of the church vs. The issue stems from the revoking of his license as a marriage commissioner in his home province due to his refusal to serve same sex couples, in that capacity.

For many years now, we have tried to blend the two, and that is what is getting us into trouble. In this regard, the government claims sole jurisdiction and has the right to insist upon compliance with regard to the requirements predicating a marriage being declared legally binding in the eyes of the law.

The religious and the secular should not be in bed together, so to speak. Religious marriage is solely within the purview of the church, synagogue, mosque, temple etc. No church is required to allow its facilities to be used for same-sex marriages in violation of its religious beliefs.

This fact, as we know, presents a major problem; the government, supported by law and the courts, is clearly and inarguably the authority when it comes to determining and declaring what constitutes a legally binding civil marriage and how, or if, it can be dissolved.

Religious marriage has no such civil authority in itself. It is logical, then, that the church should be the sole authority in determining the requirements for legitimatization of a spiritually binding Christian marriage. My friend should be grateful he has been relieved of the burden of his bondage to the secular state and concentrate on his privileged position of service to God and His church.

Understandably, this matter has also garnered the attention of other ministers across the country and, of course, the opposition. Law governing civil marriage is completely within the purview of Caesar. From both rulings, we can draw four reassuring conclusions: No minister is required to perform a same-sex (or any other) marriage contrary to his or her religious beliefs.

Your Partner for Employee Wellness. Which brings me to my main point. And from recent posts on social media, where he has been generously sharing his case and circumstances, it is clear a significant number of other churches and scores of Christians support him as well.

When we, of the church, apply for and receive a government license to act on behalf of the state as its duly recognized representative, which in this case means in the official capacity of a marriage commissioner, we are bound legally and as a matter of principle to conduct ourselves professionally and faithfully respecting, even upholding, all applicable laws.

UPDATE: Last year, an Ohio law professor said the U.S. Supreme Court needed to address whether pastors had to perform same-sex weddings, even if they held religious objections. To my mind this precludes us from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and thereby refusing to serve as a provincially licensed officiant when requested to perform a same-sex civil marriage ceremony.

It grants the couple legitimacy in the eyes of the church on matters pertaining to moral and doctrinal issues such as indissolubility and innocence before God insofar as sexual conduct is concerned. Therefore, what Divine wisdom has rent asunder let no one join again.

It should stay that way, in part because it is clear a purely secular government in a multi-everything society must support and serve equitably, if not equally, every religious, agnostic or atheistic world view. He has the backing of his church. There are and have been, for centuries, two separate and distinct marriages, if I may say it in that awkward manner.

In this respect, the church claims sole jurisdiction over the requirements for a marriage to be recognized as legitimately Christian and binding in accordance with its understanding of divine law. I am not saying they are necessarily wrong in their views on the issue of same sex marriage.

Now, please note, I said civil marriage ceremony. Some legal experts say government officials charged with performing weddings could lose their jobs for refusing to marry gay couples. However, I say he is also half-wrong as the church must have no power of compulsion over the state to declare a marriage civilly or legally binding or not.

My reasoning behind that statement is very simple. Explore all Chaplains articles. The United Methodist Church’s top court ruled that a congregation’s trustees cannot prevent their pastor from using church facilities to perform a same-sex wedding. So, my bottom line?